Collaborative learning with Web 2.0 tools: analysing Malaysian students’ perceptions and peer interaction

References

• Andrew, L., Godlewska, A., Adjei, J., Schaefli, L., Whetstone, S., Finlay, J., & Massey, J. (2013). Large first-year course re-design to promote student engagement and student learning. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
   Google Scholar
• Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Webb, C. (2000). Towards a communicative model of collaborative web-mediated learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16, 73–85.
   Google Scholar
• Chiong, R., & Jovanovic, J. (2012). Collaborative learning in online study groups: An evolutionary game theory perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 81–101.
   Google Scholar
• Ciampa, M., & Revels, M. (2012). Student access to online interaction technologies: The impact on grade delta variance and student satisfaction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9, 31–42.
   Google Scholar
• Downey, S., Mohler, J., Morris, J., & Sanchez, R. (2012). Learner perceptions and recall of small group discussions within 2D and 3D collaborative environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 1405–1419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Educational Technology Division Ministry of Education. (2006). Project-based learning handbook. Kuala Lumpur: Communications and Training Sector Smart Educational Development Educational Technology Division Ministry of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Eduviews. (2008). Teaching in the 21st century – A review of the issues and changing models in the teaching profession. Retrieved October 1, 2013, from http://www.blackboard.com/resources/k12/K12_Teaching21st_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 195–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoff. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED-377038. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Coopreport.html
   Google Scholar
• Finegold, A., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 201–215.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rienhart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1988). Principles of instructional design. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Gagnon, G.W., & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design: Key questions for teaching to standard. California, CA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics 19 step by step: A simple guide and reference (12th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781483329598
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31 (9), 28–33.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology (2nd ed., pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231–247). Heidelberg, FRG; Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-78069-1
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, K. B., & Jensen, L. E. (2011). Introduction to NVivo 9.0. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Levi, D. (2014). Group dynamics for teams (4th ed.). London: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, J. M. (Ed.). (2013). Group processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mcloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5). Retrieved http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=innovate.
   Google Scholar
• Mcloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 28–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. (2012). Preliminary report: Malaysia education blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya, MOE. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2011). National higher education action plan 2011–2015. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2012). The national graduate employability blueprint 2012–2017. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Nazzaro, A.-M., & Strazzabosco, J. (2009). Hemophilia organization development series: Group dynamics and team building, 4. Montréal: World Federation of Hemophilia.
   Google Scholar
• Neo, M., & Neo, T. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning – Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 254–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odunlami, I. B. (2013). Effects of factor analysis on the questionnaire of strategic marketing mix on organisational objectives of food and beverage industry. European Journal of Business and Management, 5, 47–58.
   Google Scholar
• Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Presseisen, B. Z. (1995). Critical issue building on prior knowledge and meaningful student contexts cultures. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/learning/lr100.htm
   Google Scholar
• Pun, S. K. (2012). Collaborative learning: A means to creative thinking in design. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 6, 33–43.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, L. F. (2012). Redesigning a large lecture course for student engagement: Process and outcomes. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2). Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=cjsotl_rcacea
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C., & Goodyear, P. (1995). Constructivism and instructional design: Epistemology and the construction of meaning. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (Vol. 2, pp. 55–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Successful teamwork: A case study. Quality Conversations – Conference Proceedings (pp. 640–646). Perth: 2002 Annual International Conference Higher Education Research and Development Society Association (HERDSA). Retrieved from www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Tarricone.pdf
   Google Scholar
• TeacherVision.com. (2014). Activating prior knowledge. Pearson Education. Retrieved from https://www.teachervision.com/skill-builder/reading-comprehension/48540.html
   Google Scholar
• Tiantong, M., & Siksen, S. (2013). The online project-based learning model based on student’s multiple intelligence. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3, 204–211.
   Google Scholar
• Weshah, H. A. (2012). Understanding the pedagogies of blogs, wikis and discussion boards. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9, 59–77.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, L., Yang, J., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2014). Emerging approaches for supporting easy, engaged and effective collaborative learning. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences, 26, 11–16.10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.002
   Google Scholar